Civil Unions vs. Marriage (712 hits)
Category: PoliticsRating: 0.26 on 44 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by CrazyHatLady (View user info) at 2007-08-16 05:45:14 EDT
Alright folks, I was having a discussion this evening about the mass "ewwww"s that spring forth from the mouths of conservatives when something homosexual comes on the television. Of course many of you know my personal opinion is that people say "ew" to show either their Christian status or their undeniable heterosexuality like wearing a cross or lifting weights (as I cannot comprehend how holding hands with someone of the same gender is more gross than Saw or Alien blood...or real blood for that matter).
Anyhow, my chief concern this evening is the argument about Gay Marriage.
The prominent argument against Gay Marriage is that God intended for marriage to be between one man and one woman.
Let's just assume this to be true for the sake of my argument.
Additionally, when the creators of the Bill of Rights envisioned what Americans should be protected against, the FIRST amendment to the constitution was established, protecting our religion from the government and in turn our government from religion. Though there are many interpretations of the first amendment, the most recent rulings have established a "Separation of Church and State".
Thirdly, The original purpose of Marriage Licenses in their conception during the Middle Ages was to grant abnormal marriages. Usually this meant that the couple did not file their paperwork on time or that the couple was not necessarily legally allowed to "marry". Since that time, marriage licenses have evolved (chiefly in the U.S.) to allow states discretion as to whom can marry and who cannot. This is done through blood testing, background checks, and ensuring that your marriage does not violate an existing law.
So, let me get this straight...
1. Marriage is religious.
2. To get married we need the permission of the state (blood tests and so on).
3. Therefore, the state is controlling a religious rite? And even worse...could deny your right to get married?
Where are the Libertarians and Conservatives who used to fight against that kind of governmental control?
And where are the Constitutional nutzos who get all up in arms about the separation of church and state?
Isn't it sort of sac religious to allow our government to pass out a religious rite, generally reserved for God or his agent, so long as your pay for the license and take a blood test?
At this point...wouldn't it just be easier to grant "civil unions" to EVERYONE and let churches deal with and define "marriage" according to their OWN religious beliefs?
Who needs a word anyway?
User Reviews
Submitted by shmack92 (user info) at 2007-08-20 10:56:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Zeglamancer (user info) at 2007-08-16 23:39:09 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Faggotry is un-natural. They should be hunted down and thrown into a fucking bear trap.
There are very few reasons I would ever disown a potential child of mine.
(If he grew up to be a child molester, a mass murderer, made an account on ubersite etc etc)
I think faggotry would have to be up there on the list. This crap about them getting to raise kids is fucking outrageous too. I couldn't imagine being the kid at school with 2 dads.
LOSE BEARS WOO!!!
-----------------------------
Remember kids, being an intolerant, short sighted bigot is cool. Just ask this guy!
Submitted by TheUniter (user info) at 2007-08-17 01:22:48 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Zeglamancer (user info) at 2007-08-16 23:39:09 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Faggotry is un-natural. They should be hunted down and thrown into a fucking bear trap.
There are very few reasons I would ever disown a potential child of mine.
(If he grew up to be a child molester, a mass murderer, made an account on ubersite etc etc)
I think faggotry would have to be up there on the list. This crap about them getting to raise kids is fucking outrageous too. I couldn't imagine being the kid at school with 2 dads.
LOSE BEARS WOO!!!
Submitted by Flack (user info) at 2007-08-16 23:15:27 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Don't care....
Submitted by Jeanneee (user info) at 2007-08-16 21:48:59 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I don't give a fuck, as long as it's still legal for me and Berty to get married.
Submitted by JonnyX (user info) at 2007-08-16 16:45:24 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Shlongy (user info) at 2007-08-16 08:46:55 PDT (#)
Ranking: -2
You know what else should be legal?
The ability to marry yourself.
I'd marry me. I love me.
-----
plus when you divorce yourself, you get to keep half your own shit!
Submitted by Axolotl (user info) at 2007-08-16 15:53:50 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
http://youtube.com/watch?v=fbGkxcY7YFU
Submitted by Bohme (user info) at 2007-08-16 15:37:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
http://www.ubersite.com/m/111010#2500898
Submitted by Newty (user info) at 2007-08-16 15:36:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Religion will always have some form of control of the government.
But I totally agree with what you're saying.
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2007-08-16 15:18:59 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
"At this point...wouldn't it just be easier to grant "civil unions" to EVERYONE and let churches deal with and define "marriage" according to their OWN religious beliefs?"
I've believed this for years now.
If gay people want to have a big party before they start living together and call it a "wedding," they can go ahead. Religious conservatives won't believe it's a true marriage, more tolerant people will, and they can debate about it for as long as they like. But it's no political issue.
Submitted by Orgasmatron (user info) at 2007-08-16 11:58:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I love that everyone gets so up in arms over the idea of a person marrying another person.
People need to get over themselves and realize their worldview isn't everyone else's, and that's not a bad thing.
Submitted by Shlongy (user info) at 2007-08-16 11:46:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
You know what else should be legal?
The ability to marry yourself.
I'd marry me. I love me.
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2007-08-16 11:31:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
my bad on that one. confusion = wrong.
something about can't marry close relative + test for genetic disorders (which some did not just stds) = fuck up in katy's brain.
Submitted by JulsInsane (user info) at 2007-08-16 11:13:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by The_taste_of_Monkeys (user info) at 2007-08-16 05:57:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
wouldn't it just be easier to grant "civil unions" to EVERYONE and let churches deal with and define "marriage" according to their OWN religious beliefs?
------------
That is actually not a bad idea.
I cant believe you guys have to get blood tests before marriage, I mean just how inbred are you fuckers?
It's called genetic diversity people and it's a GOOD thing.
------------------
Who was the huge mong head who told you we have genetic blood testing in the US before marriage?
Very few states have blood tests and it is specifically for STDs.
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2007-08-16 10:58:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by BLITZKREIG_BOB (user info) at 2007-08-16 10:44:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2007-08-16 10:09:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
marriages are bills of sale on women in some countries.
---------
Just because you're on the clearance rack...
------
i'm not even on the rack any more. i've moved to "the bin".
Submitted by SunnyG (user info) at 2007-08-16 10:51:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
Submitted by scourge (user info) at 2007-08-16 10:48:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Shlongy (user info) at 2007-08-16 09:58:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Who gives a fuck if it's called "marriage" or not?
Just give them the same rights as hetero married couples when it comes to taxes, health care, insurance, etc and leave me the fuck alone.
I'll bet you gay "marriages" don't have a %50+ divorce rate like all of the "normal" regular marriages do these days.
------------
I actually agree with Uncle Shlongy. I'll be right back, I gotta go check the temperature of Hell.
Submitted by scourge (user info) at 2007-08-16 10:48:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Shlongy (user info) at 2007-08-16 09:58:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Who gives a fuck if it's called "marriage" or not?
Just give them the same rights as hetero married couples when it comes to taxes, health care, insurance, etc and leave me the fuck alone.
I'll bet you gay "marriages" don't have a %50+ divorce rate like all of the "normal" regular marriages do these days.
Submitted by BLITZKREIG_BOB (user info) at 2007-08-16 10:44:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2007-08-16 10:09:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
marriages are bills of sale on women in some countries.
---------
Just because you're on the clearance rack...
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2007-08-16 10:33:04 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2007-08-16 10:10:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I thought the blood test thing had to do with RH factor. I don't remember from way back in 10th grade how it works but it seems like if the woman is RH negative and the man is RH positive then there is a chance that if she gets pregnant the kid would end up RH positive which could lead to some sort of complications.
But then I don't know nuthin' about birthin' no babies so I could be wrong about that.
----
depends on the state.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-08-16 10:26:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
http://youtube.com/watch?v=twQlpFrm5iM
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2007-08-16 10:10:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I thought the blood test thing had to do with RH factor. I don't remember from way back in 10th grade how it works but it seems like if the woman is RH negative and the man is RH positive then there is a chance that if she gets pregnant the kid would end up RH positive which could lead to some sort of complications.
But then I don't know nuthin' about birthin' no babies so I could be wrong about that.
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2007-08-16 10:09:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
marriages are bills of sale on women in some countries.
it depends. in america the first european marriages were for religious reasons just because the first wankers that got here and stuck here fanatical christians.
shit happens.
Submitted by Nellypaal (user info) at 2007-08-16 10:02:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Don't/didn't people get married so they can have 'legitimate' children. Kids out of marriage isn't such a big deal these days but I'd still feel bad about siring a bastard (it'll probably grow up to be one but I may as well give it a decent start at life.)
Gays can't have babies. Why do they need to get married? Property/inheritance rights: fair enough, but it's the ones who want to be able to call it a 'marriage' who really piss me off.
Submitted by Shlongy (user info) at 2007-08-16 09:58:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Who gives a fuck if it's called "marriage" or not?
Just give them the same rights as hetero married couples when it comes to taxes, health care, insurance, etc and leave me the fuck alone.
I'll bet you gay "marriages" don't have a %50+ divorce rate like all of the "normal" regular marriages do these days.
Submitted by bob (user info) at 2007-08-16 09:54:27 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
All I care about is giving gay couples the same rights in the eyes of the state as married heterosexual couples...
what they call it is irrelevant to me.
not enough people understand the difference between a "state sponsored marriage" and a "religious marriage".
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2007-08-16 09:48:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by DeadToast (user info) at 2007-08-16 09:26:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Even placiong the word "God" on money signifies a Christian alliance with the government. When you capitalize the "G", it is meant as the diety of Christian faiths. If the "G" was left lower case, it would mean a superior being, and could be seen as a diety of all faiths.
-----
i think it's funny you mention this cuz if you look closer you'll notice ALL the letters are capitalized on money except for where any signature is.
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2007-08-16 09:46:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by DeadToast (user info) at 2007-08-16 09:26:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2007-08-16 09:15:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
well the civil service is the state recognized marriage on paper. any religious service is separate and not controlled by the state.
--------------
That's not entirely true. There are religions that allow for more than one wife but the American government says that isn't allowed. There are other religious rites that the government has deemed illegal.
-------
when it comes to marriage, the us government can't tell you who you can or can't marry in a religious service. their control only extends as far as a civil service goes. you can have 1 wife or a million wives, same with husbands as long as you don't go to a courthouse and try to get a marriage license and get it recognized by the state.
and when i said "any religious service" i was strictly talking matrimonial as in the counterpart to civil service. a lot of people have both services separately. basically if they don't say "by the power vested in me by the state of _____" you can get married spiritually/religiously to anyone, it's just not legally recognized.
Submitted by BranDo (user info) at 2007-08-16 09:45:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by BLITZKREIG_BOB (user info) at 2007-08-16 09:09:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Isn't the main reason for being gay that you don't want to marry anyway?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Besides this ultra funny comment I'd like to say that I'm pleased to read the reviews on this post so far. Being from a country where a lot is possible and legal it amazes me how narrow minded the US government acts towards it's own people.
Therefor I really enjoyed those comments up untill now.
Submitted by DirtyHarry (user info) at 2007-08-16 09:39:00 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-08-16 09:36:59 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
i cannot bring myself to give a shit about this issue no matter where the "debate" takes place
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-08-16 09:36:59 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
i cannot bring myself to give a shit about this issue no matter where the "debate" takes place
Submitted by DeadToast (user info) at 2007-08-16 09:26:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2007-08-16 09:15:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
well the civil service is the state recognized marriage on paper. any religious service is separate and not controlled by the state.
--------------
That's not entirely true. There are religions that allow for more than one wife but the American government says that isn't allowed. There are other religious rites that the government has deemed illegal.
The whole thing boils down to this:
There is freedom of religion in this country, but it only applies to those of the Christian religions. Any other religion is thrown to the wayside or suppressed. It is evidenced by the 10 Comandments in courthouses, swearing on bibles, and what the government says is a sanctified marraige.
Even placiong the word "God" on money signifies a Christian alliance with the government. When you capitalize the "G", it is meant as the diety of Christian faiths. If the "G" was left lower case, it would mean a superior being, and could be seen as a diety of all faiths.
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2007-08-16 09:18:14 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2007-08-16 07:23:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
The main problem with people of the same gender marriage is deciding who adopts the others name. Potentially it could create an administrative hell on earth that would make the armies of Sathanus look like girl scouts selling cookies.
------
actually that's quite easy. the bitch adopts the butch's surname. done!
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2007-08-16 09:16:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by The_taste_of_Monkeys (user info) at 2007-08-16 05:57:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
wouldn't it just be easier to grant "civil unions" to EVERYONE and let churches deal with and define "marriage" according to their OWN religious beliefs?
------------
That is actually not a bad idea.
I cant believe you guys have to get blood tests before marriage, I mean just how inbred are you fuckers?
It's called genetic diversity people and it's a GOOD thing.
------
dammit not in every state. i didn't have to have a blood test. other states do it for diseases not just for the brother/sister/cousin factor.
i should not have told you that.
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2007-08-16 09:15:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
well the civil service is the state recognized marriage on paper. any religious service is separate and not controlled by the state. to be pronounced man and wife by whatever state you live in you need the paper and a judge signing off on it. it honestly takes about 10 minutes that way. but you can get married in any way to anyone you choose, the state just doesn't have to recognize it when it's done by a religious leader of any sort without the marriage license. while that doesn't prevent you from loving, living with and procreating with someone, it will prevent medical benefits and things like social security from being shared with the spouse. a man can still have 8 wives just not on a county court piece of paper. two men, two women, a brother and sister, all of that can be married.
you don't need the state's permission to get married, you just need it for the legal benefits really.
Submitted by HadToBeDone (user info) at 2007-08-16 09:14:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by domenad (user info) at 2007-08-16 08:05:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
This, while hinting at some solid points, is a poorly constructed argument. Marriage, in and of itself, is not religious, at least not anymore. Marriage is a form of contract, recognized by all 50 states. Currently, most states only permit a man and a woman to enter into that contract. On a purely secular scale, the states are telling two (gay) individuals "You may not enter into a contract with each other, even though it is of your own free will and you are guaranteed all the rights of a citizen of the US." Without a constitutional amendment, I would say that this is not a power government should be able to exercise over its citizens.
That said, this issue is done to death. People in the US don't like gay marriage. If you're queer and looking to get hitched, go to Canada.
-----
That would be a solution if the US would recognize that marriage. But since our "moral" government won't, it's fallacious.
His solution is the correct one. The government grants a license for a union, it's only a marriage if a church does it. Equal and non-discriminatory at the government level.
Submitted by BLITZKREIG_BOB (user info) at 2007-08-16 09:09:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Gay marriage is another political wedge issue with no real governmental implications, like abortion.
Isn't the main reason for being gay that you don't want to marry anyway? I don't get it.
Submitted by domenad (user info) at 2007-08-16 08:05:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
This, while hinting at some solid points, is a poorly constructed argument. Marriage, in and of itself, is not religious, at least not anymore. Marriage is a form of contract, recognized by all 50 states. Currently, most states only permit a man and a woman to enter into that contract. On a purely secular scale, the states are telling two (gay) individuals "You may not enter into a contract with each other, even though it is of your own free will and you are guaranteed all the rights of a citizen of the US." Without a constitutional amendment, I would say that this is not a power government should be able to exercise over its citizens.
That said, this issue is done to death. People in the US don't like gay marriage. If you're queer and looking to get hitched, go to Canada.
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2007-08-16 08:00:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
I think the word is sacrilegious.
I don't so much see where the religious sort get this notion of God mandating the whole marriage is between one man and one woman business. How many men in the Bible had multiple wives?
Submitted by DeadToast (user info) at 2007-08-16 07:38:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by CrazyHatLady (user info) at 2007-08-16 07:08:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
DeadToast you sound like a pretty reasonable Libertarian. I do agree with your point as it applies to Gay marriage and a whole plethora of other things. But what about welfare? International Relations? Waging war? Drafts? Fill me in! :)
----------
I don't like to pigeon-hole myself with an alignment to any political affiliation. The way I work is I look at the issue and decide.
Welfare:
When I speak on welfare, I don't mean the government aid given to citizens that cannot, or will not, work. That whole process needs to be re-evaluated and redesigned. I am speaking of the general health, education, and safety of citizens. The health care in this nation is atrocious. You can be charged a ridiculous amount for a simple bandage. There has to be a policy put in place that regulates how much a person can be charged for services. Even the whole ambulance ride fee is ridiculous. What if the police charged to respond to crimes, or firefightes billed you for extinguishing your house. They are paid by the local government to preform such services, as are the paramedics. That needs to be eliminated. Hospitals in general need a governing body.
As far as education goes, it seems the schools are more worried about our children wearing appropriate clothing, having "decent" hairstyles, and bowing to authority than getting them ready for the world ahead of them. Most schools have eliminated the phonics programs all together. Children are taught to recognize words, not learn new ones phonetically. What needs to happen is a universal education cirriculum. Throw out the learning curve based on area, income, and race. Every child needs to be taught the same things. I know some have learning disabilities, but is it that hard to tutor those children? I think it's more laziness of the schools than anything.
The safety of our citizens is a laughing matter. With the "War on Terror", every citizen is of the belief that this is the movie "Die Hard" and terrorists are gunning for them specifically. The government and the media skew what causes terrorism and what terrorists' agendas are beyond belief. Simply educating the citizens instead of terrifying them into submission and agreement will go a long way.
International Policy:
We don't have one. When the President utters "You'r either with us or you're against us" it builds walls for other nations. It's like when your father says "As long as you live under my roof..." It just breeds contempt and rebellion.
We need a President that can man up and say "Hey, I know that you have problems. We all do. We need to shut down for a while and handle our own. We will continue aid, but will not administer new aid. As a world, we need to get together and come to an agreement on terrorists. They affect us all and some of you have a wohole lot more experience than we do. We need your help, for a change. Guide us."
War:
A neccessary evil. And when used correctly (WW1, WW2, Korea), it can have outstanding results. Unfortunately, we use war as a economic gain, not a harbinger of peace.
Draft:
Ridiculous. As a vet, I can say that would ruin the armed forces. There would be a utter breakdown in discipline and morale.
A better solution would be the volunteer in/volunteer out military. You can leave whenever you want to. It may shrink our military, but the numbers that stayed would genuinely want to be there. They would have an investment in the cause. We need to stop training and fighting like it's WW2. We simply just can hope that cramming more meat in the grinder will help us accomplish our goals. This is an unconventional war with no boundries, rules, or clear enemies. Until we start fighting as our enemy fights, we stand no chance of winning. We need to make every Soldier, Sailor, Marine, and Airman a Special Force. The draft, as seen in Vietnam, does not work. Period.
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2007-08-16 07:23:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
The main problem with people of the same gender marriage is deciding who adopts the others name. Potentially it could create an administrative hell on earth that would make the armies of Sathanus look like girl scouts selling cookies.
Submitted by CrazyHatLady (user info) at 2007-08-16 07:08:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
DeadToast you sound like a pretty reasonable Libertarian. I do agree with your point as it applies to Gay marriage and a whole plethora of other things. But what about welfare? International Relations? Waging war? Drafts? Fill me in! :)
Submitted by DeadToast (user info) at 2007-08-16 06:36:35 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
One mistake you made was stating that marriage is religious. I am married, but did so without the aid or consent of religious zealots. I was married by the local Justice of the Peace. So, in that regards, my marriage COULD have been state sanctioned and controlled. It wasn't, but they had the right.
Now, this whole gay marriage thing is just a waste of breath.
Should the government control marriage? Absolutely not. It's not the government's business whom married whom. Period.
Our government take too many liberties with the lives of the citizens. The idea of "for the people, of the people, and by the people" has been replaced by a very, very minute percentage of the population telling you what you can do, where you can go, and whom you can be with at every given turn. I'd go as far as to say that a good majority of our existing laws have usurped the inherent powers of the constitution and the bill of rights.
Example: "All men are created equal" is a well known line from the bill of rights. That, however, does not apply if the government thinks you may commit a crime. I know in this "AGE OF TERROR!!!" that the citizens of this nation are running around like toddlers afraid of the mall Santa, but when Condeleezza Rice states "You can't allow somebody to commit a crime before you detain them.", it shows the complete disregard for freedoms that this administration has for the people.
No, I have always been told that you shouldn't bring up a problem unless you have a solution, so here goes:
Unless there is a crime being committed that will somehow hinder another's freedoms, raise their taxes, or destroy their stability the government shouls stay out of it. Will gay marriage raise your taxes? Nope. Will it hinder your freedoms? Can't see how. Will it destroy your stability? Absolutely not.
The government needs to stop pandering to the religious right and stand up for the citizens.
Submitted by CrazyHatLady (user info) at 2007-08-16 06:30:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Thanks, it is a shame.
Submitted by The_taste_of_Monkeys (user info) at 2007-08-16 05:57:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
wouldn't it just be easier to grant "civil unions" to EVERYONE and let churches deal with and define "marriage" according to their OWN religious beliefs?
------------
That is actually not a bad idea.
I cant believe you guys have to get blood tests before marriage, I mean just how inbred are you fuckers?
It's called genetic diversity people and it's a GOOD thing.